The Fight for Freedom

Human Infrastructure, Wealth from Meeting Demand, Regime, Lafayette

In this Issue…

  • Liberty Perspective: Human Infrastructure Bill

  • Wealth Digest: Wealth from Meeting Demand

  • The Word: Biden Regime

  • Historical Hero: Marquis de Lafayette

Liberty Perspective

The Republicans, who are in the minority, are rightly decrying the human infrastructure bill. But our country’s only hope in preventing such a bill from becoming law are a couple of moderate Democrats within the Senate.

The constituencies of these moderates need to pressure them so that they give the thumbs down when the final bill is voted on. But what kind of pressure will these voters apply?

The basic objection to the bill is the price tag, at least that’s what the media is portraying.  Republican spokespeople and Joe Manchin (D-WV) seem only to be concerned over the bill’s cost. Their basic disagreement is how to pay for the monstrosity because the massive tax increases within the bill won’t be enough.

There are many valid points against the bill regarding its price. It’s true it would increase deficit spending and that we don’t need more spending in an inflationary economy. But these arguments, while concerning, completely miss the mark.

Voters are influenced by the media. When they’re told continuously that the problem is the price, then that will be the main issue.

If holdouts like Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) are appeased with a smaller bill, then the country still loses. Compromising from $3.5 trillion to $2.0 trillion, for instance, may be enough to get it passed. This actually may be the strategy; throw anything and everything into the bill that may pass reconciliation scrutiny. Then, negotiate it lower so they get what they really want.

The Liberty Perspective is our objection isn’t over the cost, which obviously is outrageous, but is what’s within the bill. Do voters in West Virginia and Arizona want the Green New Deal, election takeover by Democrats, crippling tax increases that’ll slow down our economy, citizenship for illegals, and all sorts of social spending?

Republicans need to say the bill eliminates freedom by the socialist Democrats or something similar. Then articulate why they’re making this claim by mentioning what’s in the bill.

Voters then, in red West Virginia and purple Arizona, will apply the right pressure and demand that their Senators vote against the bill—even if it’s just a nickel.


Wealth from Meeting Demand

Freedom based economies, like that of the United States, are able to produce new wealth, having never existed before. To put it another way, the so-called wealth pie just gets bigger. The reason the wealth pie grows is because free markets are based on equal transactions.

Just the idea that wealth is created and not distributed is a shock to some. Many believe our entire nation’s wealth has already been stolen away long ago by white supremacists and some dudes called robber barons.

But the fact is, within free market capitalism, whenever anyone saves their income, it’s brand new wealth that previously didn’t exist. It’s from meeting demand in a marketplace and not from slicing up a rich baron’s pie.

Let’s say someone saves $100 per week from their paycheck. After one year, they would have a total of $5,200 saved. If their plan was to invest this money and not spend it, then it is brand new wealth that never existed before. 

The reason it’s brand new is because it was the result of receiving an income in exchange for their labor. The employer providing the wage isn’t doing so from some kind of wealth transfer but rather, in an equal transaction. The employer gets production and the employee receives an equal value of money for that production.

The person’s $5,200 in wealth, therefore, was created directly from their production and not from the employer’s wealth. Because the employee’s production had a monetary value, any amount that’s saved is new wealth that never existed before.

At this point we can define wealth as the saved monetary value of one’s labor.

New wealth isn’t just from labor, however. It’s actually created by earning an income by meeting demand. So it doesn’t matter if you’re an employee who meets demand with your labor or a business who meets demand with a product. Any time demand is met in exchange for money and any portion of that money is saved, it’s new wealth that never existed before. The wealth pie goes boom.

We can therefore define wealth more perfectly as the saved monetary value from meeting demand.

Businesses Meet Demand

We’ve briefly looked at employees. Now let’s consider a business that meets demand. A business will take their employees’ production and use it to produce a product or service to sell that they hope will meet demand.

Going back to our example, if our employee who saves $100 per week receives a wage of $1,000, the company then is obviously out $1,000 in money. Over the course of the year, the employee has created $5,200 in new wealth from an income of $52,000. But does that mean the employer has lost $52,000 of its wealth?

The employer has not lost $52,000 of its capital or wealth because it uses an equal value of production from the employee to create and sell products to its customers. The customers pay for something they want in an equal transaction so they haven’t lost anything. The company, however, receives revenue that effectively replaces what it paid out to its employees. So the company likewise hasn’t lost its wealth.

If the company is good at meeting demand, then they’ll replace what they paid out in wages and their other expenses to earn a profit for the owners. Profit making is the ultimate goal of any business. If the owner saves a portion of that profit, it’s new wealth just like if an employee saves a portion of their income.

Investors Meet Demand

Even the stocks you own that appreciate in value fit this description. Stock prices primarily go up when a company is meeting demand and has increased its earnings (profit or saved revenue). For the shareholder, the profit could be distributed or reinvested in the company to increase revenues. Either way, the increase in wealth for the shareholder represents the saved monetary value from meeting demand by the company.

If you drill down on this definition, it will apply to any other investment. For example, a house flipper buys a distressed house, rehabs it and sells it for a profit. The flipper met demand in the housing market when he sold a house to a buyer in an equal transaction. The buyer’s wealth didn’t decline. The after tax profits that’s saved by the seller also represents the saved monetary value from meeting demand.

Whenever any type of investor sells their asset to another party, then they are meeting demand in that market. Any gain that’s not consumed is also the saved monetary value from meeting demand.

It’s important that we note this definition of wealth to ensure everyone understands where new wealth comes from; it comes from meeting demand to earn income and then saving a portion of that income.

What’s great about free market capitalism is that earning an income by an employee, a business or an investor doesn’t prevent others from doing so as well. The reason is because wealth isn’t from a transfer or from slicing up a pie. It’s all about meeting the needs and wants of a market. Any of us can do that with liberty and free markets.



The Word

Back during the George W. Bush years, when referring to the Bush Administration, Democrats would instead call it the Bush Regime or just, “this regime.” All of them did it from Democrats on cable news to NPR to their activists who resided at moveon.org. 

This began even before his first inauguration. The Wall Street Journal had this article on Jan. 8, 2001 entitled, Green Groups Brace for Bush Regime; Some See Hope, but Many Expect Strife.

Most meant it in a derogatory way. The Collins Dictionary says by referring to a government as a regime, “You are critical of it because you think it is not democratic and uses unacceptable methods.”

Bush’s opponents vilified him so much that many to this day believe he knew 9/11 was going to occur and that it was an inside job. It seems that all these negative vibes had an effect on W.

Mr. Bush revealed his contempt for Trump supporters during his 9/11 twenty year anniversary speech. Bush seemed to equate the protestors turned semi riotous, who stormed the capital this past January, to the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people on September 11th.

The former President said, “There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit.”

He wasn’t specific, but he didn’t seem to be speaking out against the foul spirit of BLM or Antifa. Both groups rioted, looted, destroyed, injured and killed in cities across the country. In Minneapolis, they took over a police station. In Seattle, they created their own country called CHAZ, and then later CHOP. All this during the Summer of Love. That was all cool, though.

Bush instead appeared to be referring to those who rushed the capital with American Flags and Trump signs. These protesters were far from cool. They were from the pit of Hell.

Could it be that he hates those who supported Trump over his low-energy brother, Jeb, that much? I don’t believe so. It may be that he wants to receive his long-coveted approval by the media and historians for joining their Trump hating club. That way his regime will be forgotten, but his administration will be remembered more positively.

The problem with President Bush was that he never fought back. He let every false accusation against him go unanswered. Bush was the opposite of Donald Trump, who probably learned from Bush to not let things slide. The characterization of regime wasn’t accurate then, but still very effective given Bush’s continual silence during his time in office.

The Biden Regime, however, has proven to be obscenely authoritarian, highly partisan and extremely incompetent. The word regime is very appropriate to use when describing this Administration.

By accurately referring to them as the regime will be an effective message that voters will understand and not forget. After all, they supposedly voted for a moderate who would be the President of all the people. That’s not what we have now. Moderate Joe was just a mask worn by an old yet aspiring puppet who was locked down in a basement. After winning the presidency, however, the puppet that emerged was a mumbling stumbling marionette who’s being handled by his leftist masters.

So whenever we talk or write about the Biden government, a good strategy would be to refer to it as the “Biden Regime” or “this regime.” It’s not payback for Bush, at this point why would we care; it’s just fitting.

Image (greyscale): flickr, Binary Koala  


Historical Hero

Known in the United States as just Lafayette, Marquis de la Fayette was an orphaned French aristocrat worth millions. He learned horse riding by three future kings: Louis XVI, Louis XVIII and Charles X.

He married at age 16 to a girl from a noble family, but became enamored with America’s growing conflict with Great Britain. Already a military officer at home, he set sail to fight for America’s independence without pay. The revolutionary arrived in the New World in 1777 still a teenager.

Being a French military officer who was also rich, Lafayette was quickly brought to General George Washington and was made Major General. By September 1777 at age 19, he was leading troops in the Battle of Brandywine where he was shot in the leg.

Washington and his doctors looked over Lafayette while he recovered. The two became lifelong friends as Washington was like a surrogate father to Lafayette and maybe likewise Lafayette a son to the General.

Lafayette was with Washington at Valley Forge, enduring a brutal winter where hundreds of soldiers perished. Lafayette led troops in other battles outwitting the British, including blocking British Army General, Cornwallis so that other French and American forces could capture Yorktown in 1781. This victory led to the war’s conclusion and America’s independence.

In the middle of the War, Lafayette sailed back to France to help Benjamin Franklin and John Adams persuade Louis XVI (Lafayette’s family friend) to send more troops and supplies. He arrived back to the battle in 1780.

After the War, Lafayette returned home to France and was hailed a hero for defeating the county's enemy, Great Britain. With Thomas Jefferson’s aid, he wrote the first draft of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which established that “men are born and remain free and equal in rights.”

As commander of the national guard of Paris, he saved Louis XVI and Queen Marie-Antoinette from invaders and was seen with the Queen on the balcony of the King’s Chamber. The King and Queen went into exile, but were later killed by guillotine during the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, which abolished the monarchy.  Lafayette himself went into exile as well, but was arrested by the Austrians and spent five years in prison.

Napoleon Bonaparte secured his release in hopes he would assist him, but Lafayette was no fan and refused to work in his government.

In 1824, at the invitation of President James Monroe, Lafayette returned to the U.S. and was recognized by all as a hero of the Revolution. He visited every state in the country. Even today, there are hundreds of cities, streets, parks and buildings named after Lafayette.

When he died in France in 1834, he was buried under the soil from Bunker Hill brought over from the U.S.

When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties. — Marquis de Lafayette


Spread the Liberty Word

The most fun I had in this issue was writing, “Moderate Joe was just a mask worn by an old yet aspiring puppet who was locked down in a basement. After winning the presidency, however, the puppet that emerged was a mumbling stumbling marionette who’s being handled by his leftist masters.”

Imagining Joe as a marionette flailing about is just too funny to me :)

Share this post…

Share